Monday, March 3, 2014

New paper finds 3 more non-hockey-sticks in Eurasia, temperatures higher during 1800's than late 20th century

A new paper published in Climatic Change reconstructs temperatures from tree-rings over the past 230 years in eastern Eurasia and finds 3 more non-hockey-sticks with temperatures at the end of the 20th century lower than multiple periods in the past. The paper adds to over 1,200 peer-reviewed papers demonstrating late 20th century temperatures were not unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented in comparison to the past.

Glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. For the majority of alpine and arctic areas, however, the lack of meteorological data over a long period makes it difficult to build long-term climate and glacial fluctuation relationships, emphasizing the importance of natural proxy archives. Here we use the 230-year record of stem radial growth of birch trees (Betula ermanii) from the treeline forests above the receding glaciers in eastern maritime Kamchatka to analyse temporal variations of climate as well as glacial advance and retreat. Glaciers in Kamchatka Peninsula represent the southern limit of glaciation in far eastern Eurasia, which makes them prone to global warming. Using instrumental climate data (1930–1996) from local meteorological stations, we find that the July temperature had most prominent positive impact on birch growth. On the contrary, smaller ring increments are associated with the positive summer and net annual ice mass balance of Koryto Glacier. The prevailing trend of higher summer temperatures and lower snowfall over the past 70 years has enhanced tree growth while causing the glacier’s surface to lower by about 35 m and its front to retreat by about 490 m. Assuming these same relationships between climate, tree growth, and glacier mass balance also existed in the past, we use tree rings as a proxy record of climatically induced temporary halts in the glacier’s retreat over the past two centuries, which in total was over 1,000 m. Both direct observations and tree ring proxies indicate several prolonged warm periods (1990s, 1960s, 1930–1940s, 1880–1900s) interspersed with cooler periods (1984–1985, 1970–1976, 1953–1957, 1912–1926, 1855–1875, 1830–1845, 1805–1820 and 1770–1780) when the glacier re-advanced, creating several consecutive terminal moraine ridges. We conclude that birch tree-rings are suitable for assessing tree growth/climate/glacial relationships over a longer timescale in maritime Kamchatka.

1 comment:

It is wrong to assume Loschmidt's gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth's surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The effective surface layer of Earth's oceans may be considered to be only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.

This is where the error crept in in 1985 ...

"Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.

These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height."

This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.